Hi all. I do have a 40mm CFE-IF lens and was wondering if this lens really is better than the other 40mm lenses and maybe even better than the 35mm HC lens. I tried to sell it but it seems nobody wants to buy this type of 40mm. I think this is strange because it is the latest version of that lens and i suppose it is especially suited for digital. Has anybody already done a comparison between these type of lenses on a 39 or 50Mp back???

Yes, giving it away almost for free is no problem.... but if this lens is as good as hasselblad and some film users pretend, then i should be able to get a good price for it. I do not have a V body or CF adapter to test it, so the lens remains new, unused in the box.

I am guessing that it doesn't sell specifically because it is worth too much, given what it is. Nice lens, but no AF, distortion, and it isn't all that wide on many of the current batch of sensors, especially on the CFV. I don't see who would invest that much in this lens, when there are more modern options for essentially every current system out there. I picked up a Contax 645 35mm f/3.5 for $1400, and it is deadly sharp.

You might try on the hasselbladinfo.com forums. It isn't a very busy forum, but all Hasselblad. You might also be able to find out there what they sell for these days.

Hi all. I do have a 40mm CFE-IF lens and was wondering if this lens really is better than the other 40mm lenses and maybe even better than the 35mm HC lens. I tried to sell it but it seems nobody wants to buy this type of 40mm. I think this is strange because it is the latest version of that lens and i suppose it is especially suited for digital. Has anybody already done a comparison between these type of lenses on a 39 or 50Mp back???

I have a similar lens, 40 mm f4 CFE (not IF) with a macro ring at the front, and one fewer rings at the back... I posted a picture using it the other day.

I have a CF adaptor and a Flexbody... I think these lenses do not have enough spare image circle to be much use with a Flexbody on 6*6, but would have if you you have a V-mount MFDB.

If you can get it to me, I will produces a 50Mpx test file for you: I am thinking of trying to use it with my Sinar... could I mount the CF adaptor on a Sinar? ..or use the lens with a Sinar lensboard shutter?

If it was possible to use a sliding stitching back with it, you would get the benefit of the FOV and make a useful lens to a very few possible buyers.

hello,I have this lens tooit is one of my favourites !in combination with 503CW and digital back, no problemon a flexbody (I sold mine) it makes no sense, because you cannot use the tilt or shift really ( see manual flexbody)depending the focal distance, tilt and shift are limited to almost nothing before having trouble with vignetting and fall-offflexbody is more usable with 80mm, 120 mm (but not easy to focus and adapt) I am using a sinar P3 now

hello,I have this lens tooit is one of my favourites !in combination with 503CW and digital back, no problemon a flexbody (I sold mine) it makes no sense, because you cannot use the tilt or shift really ( see manual flexbody)depending the focal distance, tilt and shift are limited to almost nothing before having trouble with vignetting and fall-offflexbody is more usable with 80mm, 120 mm (but not easy to focus and adapt) I am using a sinar P3 now

I also have a P3... do you think it would be practicable to use a CFE 40 on a P3?

With a V-mount digital back you could use the movements of the Flexbody, as the MF CCD would be smaller than 60 mm square. (even if you had a full 645 CCD, you could use an extra 7.5mm of shift.

Well you are advertising a new in Box lens - with no price and a PM me message...- what do you expect to get for a second hand new in box lens? If I wanted to buy a new one - with no potential issues - at a new price I'd buy from a dealer ..So you have to discount the lens significantly...I have never owned one but for CFV11 back and 205TCC shooting I have the 50 FLE 2.8 - which is nice - the 40 you have has known distortion issues which can be fixed easily enough - and it is a great piece of glass - for digi shooting though on blad - these days you are up against the 28HC and its DAC corrections - some people like them some dont. Mostly people who dont own one dont like them - the usual anti-HC commentary from the usual anti DACmindset.

Hasselblad 40IF is my favorite lens, and it works great with my 503CW/Phase One P25 DB. IMHO, it's sharp beyond sharp, much better than Contax 35. Distortion might be a problem for architecture, but can be easily fixed.

The Hasselblad Zeiss 40mm CFE IF has higher resolution at the edges, at least 100 lp/mm, which benefits film shooters. The Rodenstock HR lenses offer a maximum of about 60 lp/mm and is targeted for digital use, since current single shot digital backs cannot resolve more. If you compare the published MTF curves for both of these lenses, you can also see better MTF edge performance from the Zeiss lens. The higher edge distortion of the Zeiss lens was a design trade-off. It allows landscape shooters to resolve more detail at infinity, and the distortion was kept as linear as possible to allow a more accurate rendering in post distortion correction, when desired. Even after post correction, you should still wind up with at least 60 lp/mm, if not more.

Also, the 40 CFE IF has floating elements that provide excellent performance at all focusing ranges, from close up to infinity. The Rodenstock lenses do not have such floating elements and are designed for infinity distances.

Hi all. I do have a 40mm CFE-IF lens and was wondering if this lens really is better than the other 40mm lenses and maybe even better than the 35mm HC lens. I tried to sell it but it seems nobody wants to buy this type of 40mm. I think this is strange because it is the latest version of that lens and i suppose it is especially suited for digital. Has anybody already done a comparison between these type of lenses on a 39 or 50Mp back???